The key conclusion (emphasis added):
LGBTQI campaigns assert that love is equal, yet they help marginalize attachments and acts they find repugnant or inconvenient. The activist community should acknowledge all types of sexuality and marriage that meet their professed moral standard. They should not deceive the public by selectively applying their morality.
Alternatively, activists should abandon their artificial solidarity and the morality they deploy to justify it. They should admit that not all sexual desire and acts and types of marriage are equal. Many will join with the straight binary community in rejecting the appropriateness of polygamy, incest and bestiality. In so doing they might view their own orientation with humility and ponder whether insisting on complete normalisation is good for society.
EGI Notes does not say we must hate homosexuals, and it does not say that homosexuals should be completely excluded from racial activism merely based on their sexual preferences (leadership positions are another matter entirely). But is it too much to ask that they are honest about it (hiding it only makes it worse if and when it is uncovered) and, more importantly, that they admit that their preferences are abnormal? Put it this way: there is a big difference, an almost existential difference between a racial activist who just happens to be homosexual and who has their sexuality as a secondary and incidental part of their identity and a homosexual who just happens to be a racial activist with their sociopolitical/racial views merely being a secondary and incidental part of their identity. The former person – if they are upfront about what they are and if they accept the abnormality of it – can be a useful and effective racial activist. The latter person – using racialism as a front to push a homosexual agenda – is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Particularly if such a person – of the latter type – attempts to normalize homosexuality and, even more so, if they promote markedly maladaptive memes such as anti-natalism, then then they are agents of racial degeneration, not racial progress.
Are there representatives of the former type in the “movement?” Potentially so, potentially since they are still “in the closet” as there are no openly identified (and thus honest) homosexuals who clearly prioritize race and civilization above their sexual identity. The latter type? Yes, they exist in the “movement” and they would profit I believe in reading Salter’s piece and reflecting on the phrase: “they might view their own orientation with humility and ponder whether insisting on complete normalisation is good for society.”
A thought experiment: if a safe and effective cure for homosexuality was devised, so that all such people could be reprogrammed to be heterosexual just by, for example, taking a pill, what would be the attitude of homosexuals in racial activism? Would they welcome the opportunity to divest themselves of their abnormality, or would they protest that this is an affront to “gay identity” and “authenticity?”
The other conundrum is if for some activists their sexual identity is of importance then why are they still officially “in the closet?” Now, as stated above, I believe everyone should be open and honest about these issues and if they are homosexual should just come out and say it. However, if they believe that it is a private issue that is wholly incidental to their identity, then one would expect that they would never promote, or in any way attempt to normalize, homosexuality in any way. It has to be one or the other.